You can get quite detailed timing data from the F1 app. If you have the speed and time data for a sector that's completely full throttle and straight you can calculate quite a lot.
Interesting point, which a little bit implies that Williams would have the best aerodynamics by now. But clearly that is still not the case. So I am quite skeptical, whether CFD time has indeed the effect it aims to have. We all know that knowledge which you build up over time as a developer pays in long term. So even thou teams like Mercedes may have shorter time for CFD, they have the knowledge base build up over time which they use heavily.
Also, keep in mind that this year the rule is only in a demo mode. The first team has 90%, the last team has 112.5% of the dedicated time. From the next year this will change to 70% and 115%. (The time for the teams between is defined in steps of 2.5% this year, next year 5%)
Exactly CFD time does not necessarily correlate to effectiveness. The saying "all models are wrong but some models are useful" definitely applies and if you make incorrect assumptions your CFD will not be that usefel
If you subscribe to F1TV you get timing data in form of additional screen which you can view. Apart of that, there were several attempts in the past to extract timing data from from live streams, which stopped around 2016 when the API was changes. So to my knowledge, there is no free API for that. If there was payed version, I would be also interested, but I don't know about it either. The thing is that F1 considers this traditionally very sensitive information and is unlikely to make it public any time soon.
Since Williams defines the very bottom of the race grid, they don't have much to hide in terms of technology. So releasing a 3D model of their car in this form is nothing that would harm the team at this time.
It is possible that their aerodynamics are good or even best of all F1, while the motor, the suspension, the tires, etc lag enough to nullify this advantage.
While I believe this is interesting project, I got really distracted by the PR around it. "scientist love flow chart" is like talking to babies and making fun of science at the same time. The fake scientist in all pictures ... probably I am not the target audience here.
They are muxers, which allow you to put already-encoded audio/video (though in the likely case they use standard codecs ffmpeg can also handle the encoding for you) into these file formats.
I personally use more or less 3 stages. 1. whiteboard and marker - explore ideas, big-picture thinking, fast iterations. 2. paper notebook - things that emerged from point 1 are more precisely recorded into a paper notebook. Things go much slower here, especially because the eraser or the paper burns out quite quickly and there is no point to keep pointless notes. The structure of the paper is quite important as well. I noticed blank paper does not work that well and I spent more space there with less structure. Linked paper is also not good. Square paper is better. But the best one for me is dotted paper. Ideal compromise between structure and freedom. 3. everything that survives stage 2 goes to real code and git logs. Here the structure is maximal. Keeping notes in the code is of course good way as well as extensive git comments.
Does the tone bothers anybody? After reading first couple of sentences I got the impression that the author knows it all and everybody else is just stupid... This may be cultural difference, or too much sensitivity on my side. I don't know.
It's not just you. The article starts out with a very inflammatory title. If the author had any regard for effective communication, they would begin by explaining what exactly is a "monitoring startup", but instead they assume that there can really be only one kind of "monitoring". About 3/4 through the article, it becomes clear they probably mean monitoring servers, and not, say, monitoring a physical location with cameras, or monitoring an assembly line or baby monitors.
Then, the meat of the article is basically saying "everyone else failed, so you will too. Also, Google can do it better than you." It just sounds snarky and arrogant. IMO much of the point of startups is to be allowed to take risks. If everyone has a conservative attitude that risky ideas shouldn't even be tried, progress never happens. What do you think this guy would have said when Elon Musk announced his plans to launch SpaceX? Good thing some people don't listen to cynical asshats.
Also, two-sentence paragraphs. They convey a fundamental misunderstanding of how paragraphs are used.
If it was a comment on HN, it’d be downvoted to hell. Instead it’s written as an article and soared to the front page. Maybe I should write my comments as blogs instead, since I have a large amount of downvotes.
This is very interesting. Does it mean that the author has access to 2020 Spanis GP telemetry from Williams?